When a gunman
opened fire on a Republican congressional baseball team practicing on
a suburban Virginia field on June 14 2017, national attention was once again focused on the dangerous level of political
polarization in the USA.
The attack wounded Louisiana Representative Steve Scalise and four other people,
but the outrage quickly passed as shock jocks, social media and even some
political leaders returned to their divisive rhetoric.

“Since the 1970s, ideological polarization has
increased dramatically among the mass public in the United States...There are
now large differences in outlook between Democrats and Republicans, between red
state voters and blue state voters, and between religious voters and secular
voters. These divisions are not confined to a small minority of activists—they involve
a large segment of the public and the deepest divisions are found among the
most interested, informed, and active citizens.”

Many of us thought that Barack Obama was an
inspiring figure, and that, as the first African-American President, he would
unite the nation and reverse this trend. It didn’t turn out that way, and now
an even more polarizing figure sits in the White House—President Donald J. Trump.

“the year Republican primary voters applauded
proposals to build fences on the border and to ban Muslims…the year that the
leading Democrat in New Hampshire polls was a self-proclaimed socialist who
favored 90 percent top tax rates and a $15 per hour national minimum wage…the
year we all decided once and for all that those on the other side of the
political divide didn’t just have different priorities, didn’t just hold different
opinions, but were out to destroy the country and everything it stands for.
Americans in 2016 are more politically divided than ever before.”

The finality of the election result provided
no antidote to the passions inflamed by the angry rhetoric of the presidential campaign.
Facebook lit up with even greater vehemence after Trump’s election, and then
again at his inauguration. By hurling insults and ridicule at right-wingers, my
left-wing friends released their fury over Trump’s election and took their
revenge for the assaults against Obama that my right-wing friends had posted
during his presidency.

Social media did not
provide a forum for healing through meaningful conversations about where we go
from here. It wasn’t used as a medium to develop greater understanding between
partisans on opposite sides of the political divide. It wasn’t even used very
much as a platform for strategizing about how to respond to the surprising
election of a neophyte politician as President whose party now controls both houses
of Congress.

Post-election,
Facebook was just another place for disappointed Democrats to howl their rage
at their political foes and for Republicans to express their glee. Is
there any way out of this impasse?

In the Winter 2017 issue
of The American Scholar, sociologist Amitai Etzioni urged
his fellow liberals and progressives “who wish for a less reactionary America”
to engage with, rather than despise, those who voted for Trump, in the hope
that some bridges might yet be built. Clearly, many of those voters won’t
be attracted to any new variant of progressive thinking, but respect for their
fellow human beings and political prudence suggests that all of them should be
approached as if they could be.

The question is not
only whether a new progressive movement can appeal to the less extreme elements
of Trump’s constituencies, but also whether progressives can understand the
legitimate anger and frustration that many Trump voters felt and still feel, in
the hope of creating a more workable, just, and peaceable society that is
founded on some sense of common ground.

Is it really that hard
to listen and speak respectfully to people you disagree with politically? Etzioni’s
admonition is the same advice given by Robert Fulghum in his popular book
series from the 1990s, All
I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten: even the best and
brightest can regress into angry children misbehaving on the playground, absent
the emotional maturity required to engage in adult conversations across
ideological and other lines.

“It’s obvious that
Trump voters are racists, bigots, and brain-washed religious fanatics who will
never listen to facts, reason or measured attempts to understand that they're
haters. They’re fanatics who have abdicated all rights to be treated with
respect and courtesy. You can't negotiate with fanatics. You either fight them
on their dirty, ugly Trumpian turf or you die.”

This was a comment posted by a Facebook friend
after Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, but you could easily find the mirror image of this diatribe among Trump
supporters about the Democrats. It’s the kind of stuff that is all over social
media. It’s convenient and emotionally cathartic. Feel like adding yet more
fuel to the fire? You certainly can and you won't be alone, but first
ask yourself whether that’s the highest or best use of your time.

Myself? I decided to
try something different. Beginning a month after Trump’s inauguration, I
invited my friends (both pro- and anti-Trump) to participate in discussions on
Facebook about current political issues. My only request was that contributors did
not attack each other personally, though they were free to criticize any
political figure.

Sixty-three people
participated in the initial discussion threads and more joined in as time went
on: blue and white collar, Baby Boomers and Millennials, high school grads and
PhDs, urban and rural, and from many different states. Several started their
own discussion forums. Nasty and angry remarks were posted about Trump, Clinton,
and other politicians, but the request to avoid personal attacks was honored.

Topics ranged from US
policy in Syria, to relations with Russia, to abortion. To me, these
conversations were proof that it’s possible to use social media for more than
insulting those who oppose you, or huddling with like-minded friends so that you're
never challenged by reasonable views that are different from your own. That’s
important, because most of us agree that growth comes from exposure to new and
different information, interpretations, analyses and conclusions.

Therefore, shrinking
opportunities for this kind of conversation feed through into further
polarization and disenchantment with democracy, at a time when—as successive
World Values Surveys have shown—there’s increasing cynicism about the value
of political participation. Millennials are the most disillusioned generation about
democracy since polling data began to be compiled, with 26 per cent saying that
“free and fair elections” are unimportant.

This declining commitment to democratic values
is related to an increased feeling of powerlessness and anger among many Americans,
which manifested during and after the 2016 election. The inclination is to lash
out rather than to produce rational arguments in support of what our parties
and candidates really stand for. Both the Trump and Clinton campaigns were run along
these lines, and too many of us have followed their leads.

Further ‘fight and flight’ responses will deepen
the cynicism, pessimism and complacency about democracy even further. So
as a small step forward, how about using your own Facebook page to hash out disagreements
and possibly find some common ground on important issues, instead of just
bashing your political opponents? Through civil conversation we could at least
develop a better understanding of what divides us and why. That would lower the
temperature of the body politic so that more moderate and pragmatic voices
could be heard.

After we’ve vetted our own opinions and
arguments, we’ll have a firmer grasp of the relevant facts and a better
understanding of the issues. That, in turn, should help to move us past the
point of discussion and on to encouraging activism by calling out politicians who
behave undemocratically, and by marching, demonstrating, calling legislators, signing
petitions, and voting for candidates who represent a different form of politics.

Or, of course, we can continue to do the
opposite by feeding our primitive impulses and lashing out on social media before
ducking back into our own filter bubbles. The toxic polarization of the time of
Trump will get even worse, but at least we’ll feel safe and secure inside our
silos.

Jeff Rasley is the author of Polarized!
The Case for Civility in the Time of Trump. He practiced law for thirty
years in Indianapolis, Indiana and was admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. Jeff
is a graduate of the University of Chicago, Indiana University School of Law,
and Christian Theological Seminary.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.